When it comes to selecting one sight you don’t want to miss, my Parisian choice may feel counterintuitive. In a city known world over for its architectural marvels and superb art collections, most visitors would make the Louvre, or the Notre-Dame, or the Eiffel Tower their unmissable attraction. And yet I hold that in Paris, such an attraction is a chapel that you cannot even really see from the street.
(As an aside, I don’t mean “unmissable” here in the sense of “making sure that it appears in your line of sight” – no one will ever claim not being able to see the Eiffel Tower from a distance. Instead, I mean “unmissable” in terms of investing time and effort for in-depth exploration, especially if you are ultra-selective in making such investments.)
Completed in 1248, initially for the purposes of housing the relics that the pious King Louis IX had in his collection, Sainte-Chapelle is an incredible piece of Gothic architecture that few others can compare to. It prominently features in the Paris World Heritage description, and I’ve been to inscribed places of worship elsewhere that are less impressive than Sainte-Chapelle, which leads me to state that it would stand as a worthy WH property all on its own.
The sky-piercing spire appeared in the background a couple of times in the previous post, and yet you can’t just walk up to Sainte-Chapelle. As befits its original purpose of a private royal place of worship, it sits in the courtyard of Palais de la Cité, the main residence of the French kings until the 14th century. Remodeled many times over the centuries, the present-day palace is known as Palais de Justice, and continues to surround the church on all sides. Even as you pass through the ticketed entry on Boulevard du Palais, you hardly register the church in the building that you eventually enter from the courtyard. You can find exterior pictures of it on Google Images, but I have never seen it not encircled by a construction-site-type fence on the ground level.
That ultimately doesn’t matter all that much, because the awesomeness of Sainte-Chapelle is in what’s inside, specifically in the upper chapel.
Better photographers than I may be able to properly relay the impression of the entire church having walls of stained glass. I can only offer assorted fragments.
Non-glass details add to the overall ensemble.
The upper chapel and the aforementioned relics were accessible only to the royal family and to their chosen guests. Courtiers and lower classes used only the lower chapel.
There was a time years ago when access to Sainte-Chapelle was free of charge. I have heard of people coming into the lower chapel, thinking that it was ok but not exceptional, and leaving after a couple of minutes without having ascended to the jaw-dropping upper chapel.
Hardly anyone will make that mistake today, given the cost of entry and the non-trivial wait to get through security. Both of which are very worthwhile investments to see this incredible piece of art.
This is such a stunningly incredible cathedral, and I’m so grateful that I got to see it through your travels and pictures. But as I read the description, I stopped at this line: “…Completed in 1248, initially for the purposes of housing the relics that the pious King Louis IX had in his collection….” I mean, do we ever really stop to take in what we’re reading when the historical narrative gives us “information” like this? I mean, do we really believe that ALL THIS cathedral, in all it’s massive size, artistry, and magnificence was built simply to house a few relics (which ones, btw)? Surely, a more personal, perhaps oversized church or chapel would have done just as well for such a purpose. Why, with all considerations of time, expense, supplies, challenges of lighting (no electricity) and everything else, do we not question this facile explanation?